****
### 1. Substance of the Document
This document is a separate opinion of Judge Vasyl Lemak of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding the Decision of the CCU dated May 19, 2026, No. 3-r/2026. In this Decision, the Court declared unconstitutional certain provisions of the law that restricted the right to leave during martial law. Judge Lemak expresses fundamental disagreement with the position of the majority of the Court, insisting that under the conditions of war, the state has the right to proportionally restrict socio-economic rights in order to ensure defense capability. In his conviction, the rights of vulnerable categories of employees (minors and persons with disabilities) were not actually violated by the challenged provisions, and the Court’s decision contains methodological errors.
### 2. Structure of the Document and Key Provisions
The document has a clear logical structure, divided into five thematic blocks and a conclusion:
* **Section 1 (“Which Human Right Did the Court Protect During the War”):** analyzes the nature of the right to rest and the limits of its legislative regulation during the period of martial law.
* **Section 2 (“Legal Positions of the Court as a Standard”):** examines the balance between the protection of labor rights and the constitutional duty of the state to mobilize resources for the defense of the country.
* **Section 3 (“How to Understand Part Three of Article 22 of the Constitution of Ukraine”):** provides a professional interpretation of the principle of inadmissibility of narrowing the content and scope of existing rights.
* **Section 4 (“International Law as an Argument for Constitutional Interpretation”):** critically evaluates the Court’s use of acts of the International Labour Organization, the Council of Europe, and EU directives.
* **Section 5 (“The Operative Part of the Decision: What is Wrong?”):** analyzes in detail the internal contradictions and legal inaccuracies of the operative part of the adopted CCU Decision.
Since this is a separate opinion of a judge, it does not amend the effective legislation, but serves as an important source for the professional interpretation of law and demonstrates the divergence in legal approaches within the Constitutional Court itself.
### 3. Key Provisions Important for Practical Application
For lawyers, human rights defenders, and employers, this document contains several fundamental guidelines:
* **Priority of National Security:** it is substantiated that maintaining defense capability is the supreme state interest. Temporary restriction of the duration of leave by several days under martial law conditions is proportional and does not destroy the essence of the right to rest.
* **Limits of Application of Article 22 of the Constitution:** the judge explains that the prohibition on narrowing the scope of rights applies only to fundamental rights (dignity, equality, freedom) rather than quantitative indicators of social benefits or days of leave, which directly depend on the state of the country’s economy.
* **Status of Special Guarantees:** it is emphasized that the provisions of the specialized Law of Ukraine “On Leaves” (in particular, regarding the duration of leave for persons with disabilities and minors) continue to apply, as martial law legislation did not explicitly repeal them.
* **Criticism of the Application of European Law:** it points out the fallacy of direct reference to provisions of the European Social Charter and EU directives not ratified by Ukraine as binding provisions, as they reflect the level of social progress in peacetime rather than the conditions of martial law.
